The Supreme Court restores an Alberta man’s acquittal for attacking a woman while in a state of automatism.

Matthew Brown drank wine and took "magic mushrooms" at a party in Calgary, Alberta on January 12, 2018. Psilocybin, an illegal drug that can produce hallucinations, which is found in mushrooms. Mr. Brown lost his sense of reality, fled the party, and physically assaulted a woman inside a nearby residence. As a result of the incident, the woman has lasting injuries. When Brown broke into another house, the residents alerted the authorities. Brown claimed he had no recollection of the events.

Brown faces charges of aggravated assault, breaking and entering, and property damage. He had no prior criminal record or mental illness background.

Brown pleaded not guilty to the allegations of "automatism" throughout his trial. When someone claims to have lost entire control of himself due to intoxication or impairment, this is known as automatism.

The Crown contended that Brown could not use automatism as a defense because section 33.1 of the Criminal Code prohibits using automatism as a defense for offenses involving assault or interference with another person's bodily integrity.

Mr. Brown stated that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' sections 7 and 11(d). Section 7 ensures that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, whereas section 11(d) ensures that everyone is deemed innocent until proven guilty. Brown was acquitted after the judge agreed with him. The Crown appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which upheld Brown's conviction. He subsequently took his case to Canada's Supreme Court.

The acquittal has been reinstated by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court heard this case with R. v. Sullivan, and the decisions are being handed down together at the same time.

Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and is therefore unconstitutional.

According to Justice Nicholas Kasirer, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter in a fashion that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society and is therefore unconstitutional. He argues that section 33.1 breaches section 11(d) of the Charter because society could misinterpret someone's desire to get drunk as a desire to commit a violent crime. Section 33.1 also directly contradicts section 7 because the prosecution does not have to prove that the activity was voluntary or that the individual meant to commit the crime.

Convicting someone for their actions while in a state of automatism is a violation of fundamental justice standards. The concept of personal responsibility supports our criminal justice system. To be found guilty of a crime in Canada, two elements of fundamental justice must be present which are a guilty action and a guilty mind. When a person is in a condition of automatism, neither element is present.

Parliament could implemant legislation to address the issue of extreme intoxication related violence/crimes.

The Court indicated that Parliament could implement new legislation to hold someone who is highly intoxicated responsible for a serious crime. "Protecting victims of violent crime – especially in light of the equality and dignity interests of women and children who are vulnerable to drunken sexual and domestic activities – which is a pressing and important social purpose" as stated by the Court.

The Supreme Court confirms a man’s acquittals and the Court of Appeal’s order for a new trial for another man in cases involving automatism.

David Sullivan and Thomas Chan, both from Ontario, committed violent crimes while heavily drunk from substances they had taken voluntarily. Although the two incidents are unrelated, both men claim that the pills put them in a state of "automatism", where someone claims to have lost entire control of himself due to intoxication or impairment.

Mr. Sullivan became inebriated after taking an overdose of prescription medicine and stabbed his mother with a knife, seriously wounding her. He was accused with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, and several other offences.

Mr. Chan consumed "magic mushrooms" which contained the psilocybin chemical. He became inebriated and assaulted his father with a knife, killing him and critically injuring his father's partner. Mr. Chan was charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault during his trial. He claimed that, in addition to automatism, an underlying brain injury was to blame for his criminal acts.

Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code does not allow the use of automatism as a defense for offenses involving assault or interference with another person's bodily integrity. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Chan contended in their respective trials that section 33.1 breaches sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Section 7 ensures that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, whereas section 11(d) ensures that everyone is deemed innocent until proven guilty.

In Mr. Sullivan's case, the trial judge acknowledged that he was acting involuntarily, but ruled that section 33.1 denied him from claiming automatism as a defense and found him guilty. A different trial judge ruled in Mr. Chan's case that he did not have to follow previous judgements by the same court declaring section 33.1 unconstitutional. Mr. Chan's brain injury, he added, was not the cause of his acts. As a result, he found Mr. Chan guilty.

Both individuals filed appeals with the Ontario Court of Appeal, which heard both cases concurrently. Mr. Sullivan was acquitted, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for Mr. Chan since there was no actual finding of fact about automatism in his case. The Crown then took both decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal both decisions.

The appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

In R. v. Brown, the Supreme Court decided section 33.1 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional.

Justice Nicholas Kasirer, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, stated that the Supreme Court's opinion in R. v. Brown, which was heard concurrently with these appeals and whose judgment is being issued concurrently, is applicable to this case. The Court rules in R. v. Brown that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter in a way that can't be justified in a free and democratic society and is therefore unconstitutional. Mr. Sullivan can be acquitted in this instance because he demonstrated that he was inebriated to the point of automatism, and the trial judge determined that he was acting involuntarily. Mr. Chan, for his part, can use the automatism defense in his next trial, according to Justice Kasirer.

The effect of a declaration of unconstitutionality by one trial court on another within the same province

The Supreme Court also considered whether a trial court's determination of unconstitutionality is binding on other courts in the same province in this instance. A decision is binding on other trial courts, according to the Court, unless the facts are extremely different or the court had no practical way of knowing the decision existed.

"I'm not good at typing, can I choose to write my NCA exams in person"

Since the NCA announced that they will be proceeding with the online exam format, it is highly unlikely that they will return to in-person exams. Though this is great news for canadidates located in other countries that do not have testing centres, it is definetly nerve wrecking for students that are not proficient in typing. We recommend that you learn to touch-type. Touch typing is a method of typing without the use of the sense of sight, or simply by feeling the keyboard. This way, the fingers get so used to typing that they instinctively go to the appropriate keys without you having to see or even feel around the keyboard. If you spend about 5 mins a day, you can become proficient within 3-4 weeks.

Try one of these free touch-typing tools to better your proficiency in typing:

  1. Typing Master - https://www.typingmaster.com/?irgwc=1
  2. Typing.com - https://www.typing.com/
  3. Ratatype - https://www.ratatype.com/learn/
  4. RapidTyping - https://rapidtyping.com/downloads.html
  5. TypeLift - https://www.typing.academy/

The Supreme Court rules the delay for the retrial of a Quebec father charged with multiple sex offences was reasonable.

NCA candidates writing their criminal law exams should be aware of an update to a case listed on the NCA syllabus called the R. v. J.F. On the 6th of May 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling that relates to R. v. Jordan.

J.F. was charged in 2011 with seven counts of sexual offense against his daughter in Quebec between 1986 and 2001. J.F.'s trial commenced in late 2013 before the Court of Québec after a preliminary inquiry.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in R. v. Jordan in 2016. In that decision, the Supreme Court established time constraints between when a person is charged and when their trial is completed. Following a preliminary inquiry, a trial in a provincial court, such as the Court of Québec, is limited to 30 months.

J.F.'s trial finished in 2017, six years after he was charged, with his acquittal. The Crown filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal of Quebec, which ordered a new trial. J.F. urged the court to "stay" the proceedings before the retrial commenced. He claimed that the delays he experienced during his first trial and before his retrial were excessive. J.F. claimed that his right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) to "be tried within a reasonable time" had been breached as a result of the delays.

The retrial judge agreed with J.F. that his right to due process under section 11(b) of the Charter had been violated. The Crown filed an appeal with the Quebec Court of Appeal. The judges on that court decided that each trial's delay should be assessed separately. They claimed that considering the retrial delay would only be necessary if the initial trial delay was appropriate. However, in J.F.'s instance, the first trial delay was excessive. As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal without taking into account the retrial delay. The Crown then took the case to Canada's Supreme Court for an appeal.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Crown.

Only the delay for the retrial is counted.

Chief Justice Richard Wagner, writing for a majority of Supreme Court judges, said the Jordan judgment required both the Crown and defense counsel to act quickly. This includes the accused swiftly raising the point of delay. As a result, an accused who believes their right to a speedy trial has been infringed must raise the issue before their trial in the case of a single trial. On rare occasions, an accused may raise the issue on appeal, but this is unusual. After an appeal court has ordered a retrial, the accused should not bring up the delay in their initial trial.

The Chief Justice stated that once an appellate court orders a retrial, only the time spent waiting for the retrial matters, using the same time limit established in Jordan. Only in extreme situations would a postponement from the first trial be considered.

J.F. did not raise the question of the delay during or before his first trial, and he did not mention it before the Court of Appeal in this instance. He just brought it up during his retrial. As a result, only the retrial delay can be considered. The delay was 10 months and 5 days, considerably under the 30-month deadline established in Jordan. As such, it was reasonable, and the proceedings should not be stayed.

Planning for the NCAs in 2022

2022 NCA/Law Graduate Calendar: Everything You Need to Know for the Year Ahead!

If you are studying law abroad, chances are you may be slightly disconnected from the recruitment flurry happening here in Canada. But don't worry, NCA Tutor has you covered. To make sure you don’t miss a thing, we've put together a very comprehensive calendar of deadlines and activities you should be preparing for from February 2022 until January 2023!

Read more